What on earth are you blathering on about?
Last edited:
RLJing
- Thread starter martint235
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
OP
OP
martint235
Dog on a bike
- Location
- Welling
Just you wait until we have quiet, electric HGVs. Then you'll be sorry.......
Or old bill.
Camera fingy on top...yes I know it isn't a camera but I sometimes shine my light @ it and it seems to work down Sumner Street near Blackfriars Bridge and Cannon Street (That one is now lying upside down).Whether it works during the day is debatable.
OP
OP
martint235
Dog on a bike
- Location
- Welling
Ah, ok. I really did try and read it.
Oddly enough in my part of London which is the East section, whenever peds are at a crossing they always give me a similar look of terror or is it concern that i'm going to jump them, even though i think i'm clearly stopping :/
Worse part is when another cyclists keeps on going straight through the red light, not even at speed as if it's their god given right and lots do it, makes me look a right daffodil. only time anyone has ever mentioned anything to me about other cyclists is the below incident, which made me chuckle.
Cyclist jumps lights at the top of Leytonstone high road by McD's, guy on motorbike pulls up and i quote, he gives you lot a bad name, i then said really because you were right behind him using the cycle lane to get to the lights, he was to say the least slightly embarrassed and didn't want to argue the point ;-)
Worse part is when another cyclists keeps on going straight through the red light, not even at speed as if it's their god given right and lots do it, makes me look a right daffodil. only time anyone has ever mentioned anything to me about other cyclists is the below incident, which made me chuckle.
Cyclist jumps lights at the top of Leytonstone high road by McD's, guy on motorbike pulls up and i quote, he gives you lot a bad name, i then said really because you were right behind him using the cycle lane to get to the lights, he was to say the least slightly embarrassed and didn't want to argue the point ;-)
Last edited by a moderator:
First drive-thru in the country that was.
There's a look of terror on my face when I see a PED in London because half the time I haven't got a clue what ridiculous trickery they are going to get up to next.They are also more invisible at night than the general cyclist but still cross at ridiculous places or take silly risks.Bit like Addlescum Lee really.
So I would guess not every road user is perfect.Reminded me.I want a more reflective jacket for going out and about in.
Last edited:
Absolutely not condoning it in any way. However, I can't help feeling there would be less inclination to do it in the first place if there weren't so many pointless ones. I live 20 miles from where I work and there are 98 sets of traffic lights between the two. Some are very necessary. Many are very necessary at certain times of day, but there's definitely a few that seem to have been put there simply to use up some budget...
The futility of waiting for a green light at midnight, at the junction to a supermarket car park which closed at 10pm must surely have been felt by others besides myself.
Just to be clear though, I agree that it still doesn't make it right.
The futility of waiting for a green light at midnight, at the junction to a supermarket car park which closed at 10pm must surely have been felt by others besides myself.
Just to be clear though, I agree that it still doesn't make it right.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
The village people?I wonder if we had some of these guys over here it would help.
Of course cyclists jump lights more than motorists - myths prove it.
But let's look at it again. Suppose the propensity to RLJ was the same for a motorist and a cyclist. Let us say it is 30% (you can do the same math if you would prefer another number).
Ten cyclists and ten motorists hit a light turning red. 30% of the cyclists go through. Simples.
Or put it another way the chance of no cycles going through is .7 to power 10 or very, very small to anybody without a calculator. In other words at a busy junction it is almost certain that at least one cyclist will go through if the figure was that high.
There is a 70% chance of the first car stopping. If it stops no cars behind will go through.
There is a 30% chance of at least one car going through, 9% of two cars going through etc
Actually the flattened pedestrian probably isn't counting. The first is enough. So it looks on these assumptions that cyclists are way over 3 times as likely to jump as a motorist (when the real intention is the same). So cyclists are mostly bad boys aren't they? But the observable result its just that in practice any good cyclist (the majority) cannot stop the rot of bad cyclists. It takes only one good motorist to stop the rot of bad motorists.
I know the model above is a bit simplistic but the principle is there. Cyclists have to be hugely more law abiding than motorists before we would see parity in cycles and motors crossing the stop line. If they are only twice as law abiding they will still look bad as a group.
But let's look at it again. Suppose the propensity to RLJ was the same for a motorist and a cyclist. Let us say it is 30% (you can do the same math if you would prefer another number).
Ten cyclists and ten motorists hit a light turning red. 30% of the cyclists go through. Simples.
Or put it another way the chance of no cycles going through is .7 to power 10 or very, very small to anybody without a calculator. In other words at a busy junction it is almost certain that at least one cyclist will go through if the figure was that high.
There is a 70% chance of the first car stopping. If it stops no cars behind will go through.
There is a 30% chance of at least one car going through, 9% of two cars going through etc
Actually the flattened pedestrian probably isn't counting. The first is enough. So it looks on these assumptions that cyclists are way over 3 times as likely to jump as a motorist (when the real intention is the same). So cyclists are mostly bad boys aren't they? But the observable result its just that in practice any good cyclist (the majority) cannot stop the rot of bad cyclists. It takes only one good motorist to stop the rot of bad motorists.
I know the model above is a bit simplistic but the principle is there. Cyclists have to be hugely more law abiding than motorists before we would see parity in cycles and motors crossing the stop line. If they are only twice as law abiding they will still look bad as a group.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
@sidevalve is failing to detect sarcasm being used to point out a flaw in the OP.
No need to be scared of the sight of performance-enhancing drugs - just don't take them.
And finally, I can't find on-duty pictures (I guess people are scared to photograph police since a few well-publicised heavy-handed responses) but here's some of Norfolk Constabulary (and friends, probably) off-duty:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fUO486xmZM
summerdays
Cycling in the sun
- Location
- Bristol
Your model assumes the 2nd motorist doesn't go around the first especially when there is more than one lane or the road is wider which I've seen happen, and the 2nd motorist following the first is a common occurrence.
Yes I said it was a simplistic model. Here in London the ability and space to go around is very limited in commuting time. Cars are very, very effective at holding each other up. That's what thy do. Cycles very much less so. YMMV but not by too much methinks.